Opposition cannot cut budget – AG reiterates

… slams Greenidge for seeking to undermine executive authority in the legislature

Attorney General Anil Nandlall said APNU shadow finance minister Carl Greenidge was seeking to commit extraordinary breaches of the Constitution

By Michael Younge

Attorney General Anil Nandlall said the opposition parliamentary parties have no legal power to “cut” or “reallocate” funds contained in the 2013 national budget, but can exercise their legitimate right to “approve” or “disapprove” the estimates as presented by the government.

Nandlall was at the time speaking on the “Under the Microscope” television programme aired on Television Guyana/Channel 28 on Thursday evening. He was at the time responding to questions about the intention of the Alliance For Change (AFC) and A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) to cut allocations in the 2013 estimates.

On Wednesday, the two parties utilised their one-seat majority in Parliament to delay the commencement of the budget review process, arguing that they needed more time to evaluate the government’s proposal before they decided where specific cuts would be made.

As a matter of fact, the AFC/APNU alliance has expressed non-support for a number of development projects and measures articulated by Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh who presented the budget. These include the Marriott, Cheddi Jagan International Airport expansion, specialty hospital and Amaila Falls Hydro Power projects.  The government’s decision to pour more monies into the operations of the Guyana Power and Light company and the Guyana Sugar Corporation was dubbed “black holes” by the opposition.

Perilous

“This House cannot take a position that is contrary to the Constitution and contrary to the law. Justice Chang in a 34-page ruling outlined why the opposition has no power to cut the budget. Justice Chang said so in a ruling and Mr Speaker, if the Parliament is going to take a position that they are not going to obey the laws of the land and they are not going to obey orders of Court, well they do so at their own peril,” the attorney general said during the parliamentary debate on the budget.

Minister Nandlall argued that the AFC and the APNU are insisting that they can cut the budget, because the ruling by the chief justice was just a preliminary ruling. He advised that they bear in mind a number of things: firstly, that an interim injunction is a temporary measure instituted until the final determination of the matter under consideration.

“Should the citizens adopt the same position with interim injunctions, as the AFC is adopting with the CJ’s ruling? Should citizens not comply with the interim injunction until it is made absolute? Imagine the implications for the rule of law should the citizens decide not to comply with interim injunctions the fact that the chief justice made a preliminary ruling does not negate its potency. It is a ruling, one that was of significant length and it was made, no doubt, because the necessity existed for the National Assembly and other interested parties to be so guided,” he stressed.

The attorney general, who is also the legal affairs minister, shot down any hope that the APNU or AFC had of utilising the legislature to effect changes to the law in the forms of motions and bills which would see responsibility for the budgets of certain agencies being taken away from the executive.

Nandlall accused APNU shadow finance minister Carl Greenidge of seeking to use the opposition’s one-seat majority to compel Parliament to empower its Public Accounts Committee and the Clerk of the National Assembly as well as the Speaker of Parliament to present the budgets of Audit Office and some other constitutional agencies. He insisted that this was the responsibility of the state and the finance minister.

Violating the separation of powers doctrine

“… what Mr Greenidge is asking us to do is not an ordinary constitutional breach. He is violating the separation of powers doctrine, foundation of constitutional principles, because he is shifting power from the executive to the legislature and he is shifting power to himself and he is violating the Constitution. These are not ordinary violation. Mr Speaker these are constitutional vulgarities of obscene proportions…,” said the minister before Speaker Raphael Trotman reminded him that the legislation was only a proposal and was not made law, so he should not accuse Greenidge of any constitutional vulgarity.

Nandlall reminded the Parliament of a similar situation in Trinidad and Tobago back in 2000 when conflict arose between the chief justice and the attorney general and it was proven that responsibility for the preparation and presentation of public expenditure is that of the executive and state.

Bigger size

“I listened to a television programme two weeks ago featuring my friend Mr Greenidge, the Honourable Member Mr Ramjattan, and the Honourable Member Mr Moses Nagamootoo, distinguished honourable gentlemen and they were sitting on the television and they were speaking about Budget 2013 and they were speaking about what they will do about Budget 2013. How they will cut it and, Mr Speaker, I was listening with rapt attention because so engrossed were these members, I can see the excitement in their eyes as they were discussing the instruments that they will use.”

“Mr Ramjattan spoke very passionately about the size of his instrument that he will bring. He said the bigger the budget, the bigger the size. Mr Speaker, when I look at the gentlemen on the television it appears as though cutting the budget was some form of political masturbation to these men, so excited were they, but I want to tell them, Mr Speaker, that when they engage in that cutting exercise as they seek their political orgasm; they will break the interest of the Guyanese people, they will mess up the life of the Guyanese people,” he said.

The attorney general expressed dismay at the extent to which the political opposition was willing to take its “political spite” and “wickedness”. He said that the government in the budget outlined its vision to improve the lives of its people, bringing key services to them, but the opposition was surprisingly willing to stand in the way of change and development.